Dealing with the Social Media Polycontextuality of Work

Abstract

Practice and Policy Oriented Abstract This article views social media for work not only as technologies that enable people to do certain things, but also as contexts with emerging norms and roles in which people participated. As they do so, people are confronted with opportunities and challenges that are inherent to social media polycontextuality, that is, with multiple social media–based contexts of relevance to work. This study offers guidance for people on how their participation in multiple social media contexts affects their work positively and negatively and how they can manage the associated opportunities and challenges. It also reveals how people’s engagement with social media polycontextuality may change as their employment status and work experiences evolve. Moreover, this study holds managerial implications by bringing awareness to how employees’ participation in social media contexts bypasses the organization and, thus, their typical purview but is still associated with work rather than leisure. Managers can understand better their employees’ situations and examine how social media contexts affect them within and beyond organizational boundaries and shape what they can or cannot do in their work. A better understanding of social media polycontextuality also brings managers new insights to communicate with employees.

Responses to ambivalence toward social networking sites: A typological perspective

“…Intentions and attempts to maintain restrictive rules for controlling when and how the SNS will or will not be used Use Reduction (Osatuyi & Turel, 2020); Temporary break (Osatuyi & Turel, 2020); Brief abstinence (Turel, 2021); Vacillation (Qahri-Saremi & Turel, 2020); Intermittent contribution (Kokkodis et al, 2020); Intermittent Discontinuance (Zhou et al, 2018); Retreating from multiple social media contexts (Vaast & Pinsonneault, 2022) Adapting Intentions and attempts to adapt the tasks and the SNS features for which they are used, mastering the SNS features for adapting them to users' tasks and needs, or a combination of both Innovative Use (Pan et al, 2017;; Extended use (Pan et al, 2017); Varied use (Pan et al, 2017); Supporting off-line contexts via social media use (Vaast & Pinsonneault, 2022) users are reluctant to engage with SNS and are not motivated to permanently discontinue its use either (Turel, 2015). An example of neglecting behaviour is inactive SNS use, where the users have little to lose by maintaining their SNS account, but also little incentive to engage more extensively with the SNS.…”

“…Extended use (Pan et al, 2017); Varied use (Pan et al, 2017); Supporting off‐line contexts via social media use (Vaast & Pinsonneault, 2022)…”

“…This is a common behavioural response among some ambivalent users of technological products (Mick & Fournier, 1998), who put more focus on the negative aspects of technology relative to its positive aspects. In the SNS use literature, abandoning has been operationalised in form of SNS discontinuance intentions and attempts (also referred to as “exodus”) (Qahri‐Saremi & Turel, 2020; Turel, 2015; Vaast & Pinsonneault, 2022; Zhao et al, 2018) as well as switching from one SNS platform to a rival one (Maier et al, 2015; Xu et al, 2014).…”

“…In the SNS use literature, partnering behaviours are operationalised as intentions and attempts aimed at routine, habitual, regular, and heavy use of SNS (Chiu & Huang, 2015; Hu et al, 2015; Kokkodis et al, 2020; Pan et al, 2017). Similarly, Vaast and Pinsonneault (2022) describe a similar behaviour as “sheltering” defined as “[i]ntensifying one's participation in particular social media contexts to protect from difficulties associated with participating in other contexts” (p. 15). Nevertheless, while partnering behavioural response, such as routine use, are intentional and purposeful, they often include minimal to no innovation with or adaptation of the system (Bhattacherjee et al, 2018).…”

“…While recent IS studies (e.g., Moody et al, 2017; Qahri‐Saremi & Turel, 2020; Stein et al, 2015; Vaast & Pinsonneault, 2022) have initiated discussions on the triggers and consequences of ambivalence toward IS use, including SNS use (Qahri‐Saremi & Turel, 2020; Vaast & Pinsonneault, 2022), a typological understanding of plausible SNS users' attitudinal responses to ambivalence and how these attitudinal responses can differentially influence users' patterns of SNS use is lacking. As a result, although recent studies have taken the first strides toward a more realistic conceptualization of users' orientations toward SNS use, these conceptual developments have not yet been systematically and theoretically linked to the intricacy and diversity of SNS use patterns.…”